Training eGovernment actors: Experience and future needs

As Europe evolves more online and interoperable governmental processes and services, the traditional civil servant must develop as the organiser and manager of processes and services that increasingly propagate towards business, education, health and other domains critical to citizens.

1.
Training eGovernment actors: Experience and future needs
As Europe evolves more online and interoperable
governmental processes and services, the traditional civil
Frank Wilson
servant must develop as the organiser and manager of
processes and services that increasingly propagate towards Interaction
business, education, health and other domains critical to Design Ltd
citizens. A consortium of universities and trainers addressing
training needs in government have developed a shared Tom van Engers
approach (TRIAS) based around a masterclass exploiting
existing training content together with new approaches to University of
utilising Wiki-Based Learning plus Problem Based Learning Amsterdam
for student support. Rob Peters
The masterclass was delivered to 18 persons who were ZENC
experienced trainers from government organisations
representing 10 countries where they already deliver
eGovernment education to government officers. The
masterclass aimed to expose these experienced trainers Keywords
currently involved in national-level planning and delivery of
eGovernment training, to modules, methods and tools Vocational Training,
eGovernment, Flexible
indicative of the latest trends and topics of relevance to
Syllabus, Wiki, Action
future eGovernment training plans (train the trainers – Learning, community learning,
support planning through experience). The masterclass was teaching
delivered in 2007 by a training group of 12 experts from
three countries. The training combined learning modules,
presentations, eGovernment service-site visits, practical
service design exercises, and the use of wiki-based content The experience of the
for study and problem solving. masterclass allowed
teachers in eGovernment to
The experience illustrated selected topics in eGovernment identify numerous ways to
training, and a variety of methods for training. A structured improve teaching and to
import new content, methods
evaluation method was deployed throughout the
and tools for learner
masterclass period and the results suggest participants view benefit.
TRIAS core materials, cases, design methods, learning
methods, and general approach as a solid basis for building
a community sharing knowledge and experience in
eGovernment and its teaching. Based on interest and
demand, an annual masterclass will now be offered to help
organise the teaching community around a collaboration of
eGovernmnent trainers at European level.
European Journal of ePractice · www.epracticejournal.eu 1
Nº 1 · November 2007

2.
1 Introduction – Needs for training in eGovernment
The creation of one administrative Europe is realised primarily by the national eGovernment
programmes. National, regional and municipal government agencies struggle with interoperability,
standardisation, collaboration, service integration and ICT. In 2005 the eEurope subgroup on
eGovernment held a meeting of the 25 European leaders of National eGovernment, where it was
acknowledged that teaching ICT courses to future policy-makers and practitioners is not necessarily the
best approach to eGovernment in Europe (Zenc, 2005). It was felt that the agreements made on new
services in areas such as tax interoperability, spatial planning standards, and best practices in urban
management should lead to new vocational training programmes in eGovernment. That group
acknowledged that eEurope (ePractice in Europe) cannot simply be a digitalized version of the existing
local procedures. The traditional civil servant must develop into the organiser and manager of new and
evolving electronic processes which will propagate towards business, education, health and other
domains critical to all citizens. eGovernment is more than ICT, and so eGovernment training must reflect
the breadth of issues of relevance. It is proposed (Junge, Kelleher and Hadjivassiliou, 2006) that such
organisational change requires “training of organisational members to change their understandings,
orientations and behaviours”.
The universities of Amsterdam, Bologna and The Hague each had training programmes aimed primarily
at changing understanding of government officers so as to facilitate new orientations and behaviours.
However, they also recognised that the drive towards a more pan-European understanding and
agreement on eGovernment naturally implied a parallel drive towards harmony in education of future
eGovernment officers. For these reasons they collaborated to investigate harmonisation of eGovernment
training.
While an initial objective of the group (TRIAS 2006) was to investigate common approaches to Masters
level education in eGovernment, the experience has also identified needs for specific Diploma courses,
specific training interventions based on needs at a given time, and ongoing lifelong learning driven by
the individual needs of eGovernment officers, emerging as work evolves and knowledge and skills
require updating.
The TRIAS masterclass brought together a team of twelve experienced educators in eGovernment who
played the role of course organisers and teachers in a masterclass. A group of 18 participants who were
also experienced teachers in eGovernment joined the masterclass in the role of learners. The task of the
learners was twofold: to experience and assess the masterclass content, methods and tools so as to
help the developers refine TRIAS for future usage (valorisation); to determine through experience
whether the TRIAS approach could be employed in their own countries, and own organisations, to
assist teaching in eGovernment. The course design for the first masterclass included materials that
would be expected to be of interest since they addressed example issues for eGovernment education at
the present time.
The remainder of this paper focuses on the masterclass experience and the emerging view of future
needs in eGovernment training. A fuller account of the project and its wider activities is available online
(TRIAS 2006).
2 The delivered TRIAS course
The masterclass was delivered over a one week summer school situated at the University of The Hague
in The Netherlands. A team of 12 educators from 3 partner organisations had assembled a syllabus to
cover examples of a Masters level course, with emphasis on flexibility and adaptation of content for
other applications (and changes over time).
European Journal of ePractice · www.epracticejournal.eu 2
Nº 1 · November 2007

3.
Each day consisted of lectures, practical analysis and design work, use of the wiki (eGovernment
knowledge base), and group discussion sessions. Evenings were arranged as get-togethers, but with
added presentations, themes and discussions covering topics related to the course. The course was
very intensive and encouraged a very strong social dynamic to maximise meeting, discussion and
sharing of ideas, issues, and ambitions.
The main elements of the masterclass were:
- Presentation on Dutch eGovernment history, status and plans
- Tutorial on eGovernment learning platform (wiki) and related issues
- Presentation on masters level eGovernment education in Italy
- Presentation on eGovernment status in Europe
- Presentation of 3 Dutch case studies in eGovernment
- Training session based on Crossroads Bank case study
- Training session on principles for pan-European Information Management
- Case study presentation and workshop – Migrant Integration Services
- Working with wiki technology in education – case presentation and workshop
- eGovernment simulation sessions (2)
- Participant case study presentations (worst / best cases by country)
- Methods for designing and testing eGovernment services (3 sessions)
- Site visits (Disaster management service integration – 3 sites)
- Workshop on methods and tools used in teaching eGovernment
These elements were chosen to cover eGovernment at all levels (European perspectives, National
perspectives, National cases, Regional cases, Design methods, and Operational services), plus
coverage of teaching methods. All sessions were interactive, and so even standard lectures were
followed by an open workshop discussion facilitated in two stages: firstly about the lecture (normal
student discussion); secondly about the development, role and usage of such lectures (trainer
perspective).
There were site visits to different emergency services installations, all integrated in a unified disaster
management strategy and service. Participants were set tasks whereby they interviewed personnel,
conducted analyses and discussed findings (separate group work). Then groups presented to each
other to compare results and identify service design issues for attention.
Training sessions on methodology were organised as action learning and problem based learning
experiences, both to demonstrate these approaches to teaching, and to allow the participants to fully
experience all facilities and tools. They used a range of support tools for service design exercises, and
relied on the knowledge-base (eGovernment wiki) as a single source of research information and related
cases during these parts of the course.
Case study presentations were followed by open workshop discussions to expose different national
perspectives on the issues presented. This approach maximised sharing of knowledge and experience,
and encouraged development of a Europe-wide perspective.
The simulation sessions used a full-fledged municipal government simulator whereby participants played
the roles of actual government officers in an operational simulation where they conducted realistic tasks
and observed problems concerning data integration (lack), process integration (lack), and organisational
integration (lack) – resulting in performance problems. The first session ended in a workshop aimed to
European Journal of ePractice · www.epracticejournal.eu 3
Nº 1 · November 2007

4.
re-design process and workflow, and the second session allowed participants to implement changes
and observe benefits.
Each masterclass day concluded with an evaluation session to capture data and participant impressions
and ideas while they were still fresh (see section 4). The evaluation session itself was also an educational
opportunity as it was a time for reflection by the trainers on what they had experienced each day.
(See Peters (2007) and Wilson (2007) for more detail on the course structure, content and operation.)
3 Participants and their expectations
The participants were experts involved in definition of training needs, design of training, and delivery of
eGovernment training at different levels in national contexts. They were 18 in number and represented
10 countries: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania,
Romania and Russia.
The evaluation approach (section 4) began by interviewing users about their expectations on arrival at
the course. User statements were analysed by the evaluation team and reduced to a core set of issues
and expectations.
Core issues for eGovernment trainers teaching in national contexts:
- Rapid changes in technology and government culture lead to unpredictable demands for
knowledge and training.
- In some countries, uncertainty about the reality of eGovernment practice induces reluctance to
take risks until convincing evidence is available from reliable sources elsewhere.
- Social changes demand new interventions from government and sometimes there are no
existing models.
Discussion of these issues with the group exposed the overarching concern that changes in society
(National) or in agreements (European) will cause demand for innovative services or changes to existing
services. Current education does not address innovation very well, and changes to services are often
advised by external experts when eGovernment champions are struggling to keep pace with the latest
technologies. The group identified that the focus on the technology (what is delivered) needs to shift
towards the processes of eGovernment in three areas: Government-Government; Government-Citizen;
Government-Business.
Common expectations declared by the group were:
- Finding out how to organise knowledge resources for teaching in a way that will help rapid
development of courses to meet new needs with minimal human resources (cost and efficiency
concerns).
- Finding reliable and convincing case studies, methodologies, and eService development
approaches that will inspire confidence in eGovernment officials, especially decision makers.
- Identifying ways to teach innovative eService developments, including how to investigate citizen /
business needs, how to model best service solutions, and how to develop or commission such
new services.
European Journal of ePractice · www.epracticejournal.eu 4
Nº 1 · November 2007

5.
4 Evaluation approach
The main activities in the evaluation approach followed an action learning paradigm (Boud and Feletti
1997) incorporating dynamic focus group activities (Morgan, 1997).
Prior to the start of the teaching week, participants were asked to write down the main expectations
they had of the course, and also any issues/problems in eGovernment teaching that they faced at the
present time. Responses were collected, collated, and a core set displayed for discussion (see section
2). The session was run as a focus-group to help build a group identity, to initiate sharing or ideas and
concerns, and to allow initial observation of participants (this latter aspect was used to help decide on
sub-groups to work together on practical tasks).
During learning sessions, observers were assigned to mix with the group, conduct observations of
learners and learning activities, and take notes of events of interest, and key discussion items. These
observations and notes were additional contributions to the formal evaluation activities and were used to
develop further insights and explanations of events and results.
At the end of each day, participants were asked to separately write down educational issues they
identified from their experience of the course that day, along with any solutions they could offer
concerning the session of the day (e.g. case studies usage, wiki usage, etc.). Participants were then
asked to pair up with someone they did not yet know, introduce themselves and their role, present their
own issues and solutions, and discuss them together. They were then asked to select between them
the main issues and solutions, and then to join with another pair to present and further discuss the
collective issues and solutions (in quads).
Then the whole group re-convened for an open discussion whereby:
1 Quads offered up key issues and solutions for addition to a flip chart.
2 The flip chart sheets were used to cluster issues and solutions.
3 An open group discussion was held to ensure common understanding.
4 The group was asked to determine prioritisation of key issues.
5 The group consensus was presented as a summary for the day.
All sheets were collected for collation so that in addition to the priority list, the evaluation had a complete
written record of the issues, problems, and proposed solutions from all quads and pairs.
At the end of the week an overall evaluation session was held. It began with a questionnaire addressing
six (6) questions that had emerged as overarching issues during the course of the week. Individual
answers were collected and used to develop a collated list for discussion in an open session, (see
Wilson 2007 for detailed questionnaires, responses, etc.).
5 Main results from training sessions
Selected results are presented here from key masterclass elements and their subsequent evaluation
sessions.
5.1 Overviews of eGovernment teaching approach
Sessions providing overviews of eGovernment teaching included:
- Overview of eGovernment Practices (domain and problems).
- eLearning Platform (extended wiki) and related issues.
European Journal of ePractice · www.epracticejournal.eu 5
Nº 1 · November 2007

6.
- Integrating wiki, Problem Based Learning (PBL) and Cases.
- Presentations / Overviews of Masters level eGovernment courses.
Focus group discussions of the various teaching approaches demonstrated a keen interest in applied or
practical work to help learners acquire real experience in probable tasks related to delivery of
eGovernment. These discussions also exposed significant interest in the process of engaging with the
politicians (decision makers) who develop high level policy and orientation, and who give strategic
direction to service design and implementation within government. This aspect of real eGovernment life
is not generally well addressed by courses and yet is critical to operational success.
There was also strong interest on the boundary of government as a governance and service apparatus,
and the relationship with external service organisations participating in service delivery. Seemingly, much
of eGovernment education focuses on internal or departmental perspectives (silo approaches).
Approaches to investigating and developing conceptions of eGovernment (vision) attracted strong
interest, as did the issue of reducing administrative burden through good eGovernment practice.
The group uniformly agreed (18/18) that eGovernment education must deliver and support multiple
perspectives, and should allow educators to rapidly combine learning resources to meet specific
educational needs in different contexts.
5.2 Integration of wiki and case studies with Problem Based Learning (PBL)
After experiencing PBL assignments of different kinds, the group strongly agreed there would be
significant educational benefit from the integration of PBL with the wiki knowledge-base and related
case studies (17 out of 18). They identified the great potential benefit of self determined learning utilising
these means, and the advantage of learning how to solve emergent problems in service design and
delivery using these tools. There was general consensus that while standard lectures assisted
understanding and awareness, the group action learning approach really allowed group exchange of
ideas and participants’ previous experience, combined with new knowledge assimilated during the
course.
5.3 Case studies as learning aids
The focus group agreed that case studies are of enormous value (18/18), and specific themes were
prioritised as:
- Case studies are a great way to exchange knowledge about eGovernment.
- Cases must show the value proposition and the specific lesson learned.
- Strong and clear conclusions are necessary.
- Readers want to know how technology is used to change organisations / processes.
- Cases should present multiple perspectives so that all stakeholders can identify with them
easily – if there is someone like me / my role in the case, then I can identify more easily.
- Methodology in cases must be clear enough for planners to follow and replicate.
- Reusability of experience, methods and learning are key aspects of cases.
The group agreed that without cases, learning can be too theoretical.
5.4 Problem Based Learning
Problem Based Learning (PBL) assignments were given to small groups of learners (3-4 in each group).
An observer was assigned to each group to note process, events, problems and useful learning. It was
noted that a key cultural issue affecting usage relates to organisational style. Organisations with open
European Journal of ePractice · www.epracticejournal.eu 6
Nº 1 · November 2007

7.
and flexible approaches to learning and development seem to take up PBL more easily, while more
strictly hierarchical organisations need more time to adapt to the freedom of new roles and self-
determined research strategies.
The participants agreed (18/18) that PBL is strongly student-centred and encourages self development
and self reliance. One participant notes “PBL is a well defined and organised method for both teaching
and learning”.
The focus group selected specific issues as having priority:
- PBL allows learners to experience cooperative problem solving that should transfer into the
workplace.
- PBL can be easily linked to cases and wiki core material, but should also have links to the
theoretical basis of main topics of relevance.
- The means of control are not clear so student assessment may not be easy. Quality
assessment methods need to be carefully considered.
- Course assignments tend to emphasise the content – finding right answers – but the learning
process needs to be emphasised.
5.5 Wiki-based knowledge repository
In support of PBL assignments, learners had access to a wiki which had been developed and populated
for the course. The wiki included extra facilities to make it an “educational media wiki” and included
student registration and assignment tracking. The content covered the eGovernment topics necessary
for the modules and assignments of the week, plus the linked cases, exercises, system development
methods and guides.
Participants uniformly agreed that the wiki is a highly valuable learning resource, but the effort in wiki
development is quite substantial. The focus group discussions highlighted the need to share efforts in
wiki development (a common resource, and a value multiplier).
5.6 Simulation in eGovernment education
Simulation is used in many kinds of education, especially where control processes (flight, factory,
machine tools, etc.) are involved. Simulation of more complex “people centred” processes is less
common. TRIAS engaged the use of a “municipal government” simulation suite whereby a large group
could adopt the roles and actual work tasks of various government officers.
The purpose of the simulation is to allow people to recognise that efficiency and effectiveness are
dependent on collaboration of different roles and workers. They also have the opportunity to see how
their collaboration allows them to jointly define more efficient processes by, for example, shifting
responsibility for, and owner ship of, certain information objects, or merging of tasks related to the same
information objects (process improvements).
The activity lasts for one full day and is conducted in two halves. In the first half people are supported in
using the systems only. Then, during the midday break, they take part in a workshop to expose why
things do or do not work (learning stage 1). This workshop is the first instance of being supported in
developing their perspective on how things could change for the better. In the second stage, the
simulation is started from the same point as in stage 1, and so there is an opportunity to really measure
performance gains and how they link to new collaborations and changes in roles / tasks as agreed in
the focus group discussions.
The focus group discussion at the end of the day showed agreement that:
European Journal of ePractice · www.epracticejournal.eu 7
Nº 1 · November 2007

8.
- Simulation usage can emphasise process thinking, especially ‘border problems’ where
departments / units are failing to collaborate on process transformation..
- Trainers need to be highly competent, so investment is needed.
- Sitting in the role of others can help understanding of how things work (process and power
issues).
- Simulations help to expose processes in a way that lets people see how they are in control
and where they can be assisted by technologies.
5.7 Service system design methods and site visits
Participants learned about service system design by combining learning about design methods with
learning about real world services and their operational realities.
The “design methods” sessions were used to gain knowledge of different tools and methods supporting
design of electronic services. The groups were given a case study of a citizen problem in which citizens,
government actors and their actions were well described. Participants had to use different modelling
tools to generate models of the information flows, processes, etc. and compare the outcomes between
the four groups. This insight into system development was then elaborated by the tutors who showed
how these initial actions and models are taken further towards real service design and implementation
(presentations).
The “site visits” which followed, involved participants engaging with service delivery actors in
organisations dealing with accident and emergency (police, ambulance, fire). The observation of active
service systems was followed by opportunities to interview experts inside the system in support of
specific learning tasks. The learner group was split in four and each visited and interviewed a different
part of the overall service network. Comparison of results between learner groups allowed them to
identify new issues in service design, potential problems and likely solutions.
In a questionnaire evaluation of the experience, followed by a focus group discussion to elaborate
findings, it was noted that:
- The approach is judged to be extremely useful (17/18) since it sets up bridges between
disciplines, establishes realistic expectations about the system development process, and
exposes the real life cycle of eService design and deployment.
- A total of 16 out of 18 participants decided they could and would teach this kind of material to
their students, using a similar approach. The main hurdle would be engaging service
operational staff as participants.
- Improvements identified by the group included peer review of models prior to the open
discussion phase so that each model would receive close scrutiny and critical appraisal to
deepen learning opportunities.
- The operational visit allowed learners to see that it is the service and the underlying processes
that are most important, while ICT is just the tool to make it happen.
5.8 Overall course evaluation
Because the participants were all teachers or decision makers with influence on future teaching
provision, a final focus group session at the end of the week afforded participants the opportunity to
openly discuss:
- their experience of the week.
- whether/how the TRIAS approach met their expectations as teachers.
European Journal of ePractice · www.epracticejournal.eu 8
Nº 1 · November 2007

9.
- whether/how the content, methods, tools and overall approach could contribute to meeting
their own learners’ needs in their home countries and organisations.
The group agreed (18/18) that TRIAS had met all of their personal expectations as expressed at the
beginning of the week. The approach delivers clear conceptions of eGovernment, along with the
operational aspects from analysis and design through to delivery and monitoring. It was felt, however,
that the extent of theoretical knowledge could be increased for better balance (underpinnings of
practice).
More than half of the group declared concern that while a European approach was of high value, there
should also be significant focus on the national context within a specific course at national level. The
primary customer is the learner and her/his government department.
National level focus requires engagement of decision makers, case study owners, and service design /
deployment practitioners.
The very practical approach of TRIAS, especially PBL and simulation usage, was judged to be a
distinguishing feature and promised advantages in conferring ‘usable’ knowledge and skills.
Other specific results from the overall questionnaire that attracted discussion and elaboration from the
focus group included:
- The approach is attractive and suitable to these organisations (17/18)
- A common approach (community) could use the masterclass as a focus for exchange and
updating of national level activities.
- Teachers are the main customer for the masterclass, but the TRIAS approach could be
imported by them to develop national level courses.
- The approach supports flexible course design at different levels – masters, diploma, specific
skills, customised learning, etc.
- Participants (16/18) felt organisational needs were met during the masterclass. Their increase
in competence is clearly identified, as is the challenge of implementing what has been learned.
- Their needs as a teacher had been met (17/18). They also identify the benefit of continued
contact with other teachers and the opportunity to see how others work.
- The TRIAS materials would meet the needs of their students (13/18). Key problems are the
need for good English language, and good Internet access. A key benefit of the approach
would be usage of content in an ad-hoc way to help solve design problems in action.
Localisation of content might be necessary (language).
- The main weaknesses concerned the intensity of the course and the feeling that the content
could have been covered in a longer period / more leisurely pace.
- 16 of the 18 participants declared that they wished to join the next masterclass and hope it
can become an annual refresher.
6 Summary
The structure of the masterclass had been determined as a kind of forum for learning. Using
experienced eGovernment teachers as both the delivery team (12 persons) and the audience (18
persons) meant that they were able together to explore both the content (current issues and themes)
and the delivery methods (style, approach, tools, etc.). This was quite a challenging approach for both
sets of people, but proved attractive for different reasons. Although the primary benefit was the
opportunity to examine content and methods together for harmonising future eGovernment teaching,
the participants each had a truly unique opportunity to see how other teachers work, how they deal with
novelty, and what methods and technologies are used to assist teaching in eGovernment.
European Journal of ePractice · www.epracticejournal.eu 9
Nº 1 · November 2007

10.
Responses to the TRIAS masterclass are very positive and include observations from teachers that will
improve and refine the approach and content.
The results include declarations that indicate different needs within a common domain of interest and
common framework.
From the specific results collected in the evaluation, the TRIAS team have learned how to improve
TRIAS and its delivery in future. The approach is clearly very attractive, and each of the key elements
(content, methods, tools) is judged to be of high value. The flexibility of the TRIAS approach will allow
courses to be designed and deployed at many levels. The approach will be particularly supportive of
lifelong learning as a means of self-development by professionals.
The experience of the masterclass allowed teachers in eGovernment to identify numerous ways to
improve teaching and to import new content, methods and tools for learner benefit. Adoption of the
TRIAS approach is very attractive and requires some localisation and refinement (develop globally,
implement locally).
7 Future plans
There is a firm intention by this group of 30 eGovernment training experts (12 in delivery role and 18 in
recipient role) to see a common approach in future. They declare a need to develop and tailor the
approach and content at national level. This will be developed as a core activity around which a
community of interest can share knowledge and learning resources. The task of community participants
then is dual: on the one hand to bring knowledge experience and needs, to share with others; while on
the other hand to learn from the group about emerging issues in eGovernment, about how to support
learners who want to deal with those issues, and about how to adapt these advances to local needs
and contexts.
In pursuit of this aim an annual masterclass is now planned and the second will be delivered again as a
summer school activity.
In parallel to the planning for the next masterclass, the results and ideas of the initial participants will be
further analysed to help refine TRIAS as a collective effort in sharing knowledge, tools and methods for
teaching eGovernment.
Acknowledgement – The work described here was supported by the partners of the TRIAS consortium
(http://www.triastelematica.org) and by the European Commission Leonardo Da Vinci Programme grant
Agreement n° 2005 NL/05/B/F/PP/157519.
References
Boud. D and Feletti. G (Eds), (1997). The Challenge of Problem Based Learning (2nd edition), Kogan
Page
Junge. K., Kelleher. J. and Hadjivassiliou. K. (2006). What is the scope for organisational change in the
public sector in Europe?. Tavistock Institute. cc:eGov Project Think Paper No. 1,
http://www.ccegov.eu/?Page=ThinkPapers
Morgan. D. (1997). The Focus Group Guidebook (Focus Group Kit). London: Sage Publications.
Peters. R. (2007). TRIAS Project Final Report. Technical report of Leonardo project “TRIAS Telematica”.
Contract number 2005 NL/05/B/F/PP/157519.
TRIAS (2006) http://www.triastelematica.org/
European Journal of ePractice · www.epracticejournal.eu 10
Nº 1 · November 2007

11.
Wilson. F. (2007). TRIAS Masterclass Evaluation. Technical report of Leonardo project “TRIAS
Telematica”. Contract number 2005 NL/05/B/F/PP/157519
Zenc (2005). Report of the eEurope sub-group on eGovernment.
http://europa.eu.int/information_society/activities/egovernment_research/documentation/index_en.htm#
beyond_2005
Authors
The European Journal of ePractice
Frank Wilson
is a digital publication on eTransformation by
Researcher and Projecty Manager ePractice.eu, a portal created by the
Interaction Design Ltd European Commission to promote the
http://www.epractice.eu/people/frankwilson sharing of good practices in eGovernment,
eHealth and eInclusion.
Tom van Engers
Professor in Legal Knowledge Management Edited by P.A.U. Education, S.L.
University of Amsterdam
http://www.epractice.eu/people/11861 Web: www.epracticejournal.eu
Email: editorial@epractice.eu
Rob Peters
The texts published in this
Senior consultant eGovernment (ZENC)
journal, unless otherwise indicated, are
Researcher eGov (University of Amsterdam) subject to a Creative Commons Attribution-
http://www.epractice.eu/people/137 Noncommercial-NoDerivativeWorks 2.5
licence. They may be copied, distributed
and broadcast provided that the author and
the e-journal that publishes them, European
Journal of ePractice, are cited. Commercial
use and derivative works are not permitted.
The full licence can be consulted on
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-
nd/2.5/
European Journal of ePractice · www.epracticejournal.eu 11
Nº 1 · November 2007